I have probably witnessed 50 plays since Thursday of 10+ yards and about 10 touchdowns that were called back by ridiculous penalty calls. They have put an "emphasis" on holding this season and it is ruining college football :madman:

I have probably witnessed 50 plays since Thursday of 10+ yards and about 10 touchdowns that were called back by ridiculous penalty calls. They have put an "emphasis" on holding this season and it is ruining college football :madman:

 

I hate the protecting "defenseless" players they are emphasizing. I've seen several receivers bobble a ball get smacked and a personal foul called.

I hate the protecting "defenseless" players they are emphasizing. I've seen several receivers bobble a ball get smacked and a personal foul called.

 

There were at least two major BCS games that were tarnished by the officials today - as in, the outcome was changed by officiating.

There were at least two major BCS games that were tarnished by the officials today - as in, the outcome was changed by officiating.

 

I saw them call a TD back on USC for a holding, it was legit. USC still won though, good teams at this level will not be tarnished by one or two penalties.

I get fed up with the amount of official review that take place.

I have probably witnessed 50 plays since Thursday of 10+ yards and about 10 touchdowns that were called back by ridiculous penalty calls. They have put an "emphasis" on holding this season and it is ruining college football :madman:

 

There is no "emphasis" on holding this year, or any year for that matter.

 

Holding at the point of attack is undoubtedly the key reason why the plays you mention resulted in long gains and touchdowns to begin with.

 

I am happy to explain to you what holding is (and isn't) if you're interested. But I suspect your anger is more about the "spread" than purely football motives.

I hate the protecting "defenseless" players they are emphasizing. I've seen several receivers bobble a ball get smacked and a personal foul called.

 

That one is a point of emphasis.

That one is a point of emphasis.

 

Shouldn't every rule be a point of emphasis?

There is no "emphasis" on holding this year, or any year for that matter.

 

I forget which game I was watching, but the announcers said it was. It could have been a Big10 thing though.

I get fed up with the amount of official review that take place.

 

This is an interesting point in light of Wireman's comments. Some people want every call scrutinized by review, some people think it's already too much.

 

Obviously, the objective in officiating is to get every call right. But video review has changed the way officials make calls in some situations. For instance: if in doubt, it's a catch; if in doubt, it's a fumble and not an incomplete pass; if in doubt, a runner did not step out of bounds. In those situations, the game officials will let the play continue and rely on the video booth to either confirm or correct the call--not because we can't make a call, but because that's the way the bosses want it done.

Shouldn't every rule be a point of emphasis?

 

Points of emphasis highlight specific unethical practices. They are not solely communicated to officials; they also serve notice to coaches to prepare their players to adjustments in the application of the rules. Points of emphasis are almost exclusively safety oriented.

 

Other violations and infractions require judgment with regard to both the letter and the spirit of the rules.

Edited September 13, 200917 yr by offside

I forget which game I was watching, but the announcers said it was. It could have been a Big10 thing though.

 

The announcers in two of the games I watched said, "holding is a point of emphasis this season..."

 

They also said they would be calling it when the offensive lineman twists the defensive lineman and puts him on his back.

This is an interesting point in light of Wireman's comments. Some people want every call scrutinized by review, some people think it's already too much.

 

Obviously, the objective in officiating is to get every call right. But video review has changed the way officials make calls in some situations. For instance: if in doubt, it's a catch; if in doubt, it's a fumble and not an incomplete pass; if in doubt, a runner did not step out of bounds. In those situations, the game officials will let the play continue and rely on the video booth to either confirm or correct the call--not because we can't make a call, but because that's the way the bosses want it done.

 

I actually don't mind the review process in college (NFL is a different story). In college, for the most part, they are quick and accurate.

There is no "emphasis" on holding this year, or any year for that matter.

 

Holding at the point of attack is undoubtedly the key reason why the plays you mention resulted in long gains and touchdowns to begin with.

 

I am happy to explain to you what holding is (and isn't) if you're interested. But I suspect your anger is more about the "spread" than purely football motives.

 

Actually, the spread means nothing to me in this particular conversation. Some examples I'm talking about (that I didn't bet on at all): South Carolina had two huge plays called back because of holding which changed the outcome of the game, Colorado had 2-3 huge plays called back Friday night even though they would've lost anyways, USC had a huge play called back but it didn't change the outcome, Notre Dame had a TD called back that may have changed the outcome - there are more, but these stand out.

The announcers in two of the games I watched said, "holding is a point of emphasis this season..."

 

They also said they would be calling it when the offensive lineman twists the defensive lineman and puts him on his back.

 

I didn't get the memo instructing us to call more holding. I do recall a Coaches Association poll this spring which revealed that about half of Division 1 coaches think it's called too much, and the other half think it's not called enough.

 

But I certainly agree with your second point.